Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton has written in with a tale of media rippers and corporate giants "In 2001 RealNetworks
sued and blocked
Streambox from distributing the Ripper, a program that let users rip
and save RealAudio and RealVideo streams even if the stream contained a proprietary
"do not copy" flag. Then one year ago this month,
RealNetworks caused a stir by
releasing a beta of RealPlayer 11 that similarly let the user record and save streams from
sites like YouTube and Pandora.
YouTube rippers
and the like had existed before, but this was
the first time a major company had included a stream ripper in its media player.
And while RealPlayer 11 didn't explicitly ignore
any copy protection flags, the release still provoked legal rumblings: in a
Variety article
by Scott Kirsner, an anonymous network exec said accused RealNetworks of 'aiding
and abetting piracy' and said that they would 'more likely than not' take action
against RealNetworks. But now that the feature has stayed in RealPlayer for
a year, its real impact will be not on piracy but on the perceived legitimacy
of ripping programs. The corporate behemoth,
raked over the coals in the past for
privacy violations
and nuisance-ware,
strikes a blow for
free-culture hackers."
The rest of Bennett's essay is available by following that magical link right below these words.

First, the reasons I don't think that RealPlayer has much effect on actual piracy.
Yes, if a pirate has uploaded your favorite song
to YouTube, you can save a copy of the video file to hear the song over and over, but
you can do the same thing on YouTube itself as long as you're connected to the Internet.
The anonymous network exec in the Variety article
points out
that RealPlayer
"allows you to own [content] forever on your hard drive, even if the Web site that distributed
that content illegally has taken it down in because we've complained." But regardless of what
complaints they've been sending, almost all
popular songs are currently available for listening on YouTube so that anyone with a Net
connection can get them on demand, and that's a separate issue, with or without RealPlayer.

So then it becomes a question of whether RealPlayer enables the user
to do more interesting things with the
song or video, like take it with them on an iPod. RealPlayer only lets you save YouTube
videos as an FLV file. But as long as doing things like playing
an FLV file on an iPod requires an
outside hack, that option is only
available to people who are resourceful enough to go out and find tools like that
(admittedly not a very high bar, but too hard for many people).
So, suppose you define a "resourceful" person as someone smart enough to figure out how
to convert an FLV file into an iPod-viewable format. Then there are two possibilities:
(a) either a person is not that "resourceful", in which case if they want content to take
with them, they'll still have to get it through legitimate channels like the iTunes store, or
(b) if the person is "resourceful",
they would have known about tools for ripping YouTube videos to MP3,
long before RealPlayer 11 came out (in fact,
most sites that come up in a
search for "flv to mp3 converter"
are just rippers specifically for YouTube). In either case, RealPlayer's ability to save
FLV files has no impact on the market for the song.

I haven't talked about some outlier cases where RealPlayer could perhaps help a novice user
avoid paying for content (if a novice pirate didn't know enough to download a movie from a
BitTorrent network, they could perhaps save up enough interesting videos from YouTube for
a long plane ride where they won't have Internet access). But there's an easy way to get
a verdict on RealPlayer's impact on piracy: How much have you heard teenagers talking about it?
You heard teens through the years buzzing about Napster, KaZaA, and BitTorrent, but... RealPlayer?
The cliche among teenagers today is to go "find something on YouTube", but "and then grab it with
RealPlayer" has yet to prove useful enough to enter the vernacular.

Similarly, RealPlayer can be used to rip streams from Pandora, but it's just hard enough to
do it that most people are likely to give up. Before going into details, I should say that
I'm against anyone trying to circumvent paying for music. Most of the time when you read that
on the Web, it carries this nudge-wink subtext right before the author launches into a detailed
description about how, exactly, to circumvent paying for music. But I really do believe that there is a
vast untapped potential of unwritten good music out there, and that it could be tapped if there were
only lower barriers of entry for musicians, better channels to distribute music to users,
and a guarantee that users would pay instead of stealing it -- all of which is
helped by services like Pandora. On the other hand, I
also believe that if a copying scheme can be circumvented, and especially if it can be circumvented
in a way that's fairly easy to discover, there's no point in keeping it secret: We might as well
push things forward by acknowledging that the scheme is beatable, and deciding what to do about it.

The outing commences: if you save a stream from Pandora, RealPlayer will give you an error if you
try to play the stream back from your RealPlayer library. But if you find the "mp4" file in
your RealPlayer downloads, you can play it in WinAmp. However, the file as saved will not play
in Windows Media Player, iTunes, or RealPlayer itself. Plus, since Pandora does not let you pick
which song you want to listen to on demand, your stream might contain all the songs that you had
to skip past to get the one you wanted, and you'd have to find a utility to edit the mp4 file
to get rid of that cruft at the beginnig.
At some point, the effort probably exceeds the dollar you'd have to pay to
get the song on iTunes (or, if you're a pirate, the effort to find it on a p2p network).

Again, the "teenager buzz test" is instructive. You do hear kids these days talking about listening
to songs on Pandora, but not about ripping them with RealPlayer.

Where I think RealPlayer will make the most difference in the long run is in its political and legal
impact, by legitimizing stream-ripping as something that "real" companies, so to speak, are
allowed to do. In 2006, Google sent a
cease-and-desist letter
to TechCrunch for hosting a tool
that lets users save YouTube videos to their hard drives. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch
blogged at the time, "I am likely to remove the tool to preserve my relationship
with the company [Google/YouTube]", but the tool is still up, and I don't know whether it was ever
taken down at all (TechCrunch did not respond to an inquiry).
Today, there are more YouTube rippers than ever, several of them even
runningAdSenseads.
(I'm not sure if that's within Google's rules, but I mentioned those sites
while e-mailing back and forth with Google for this article, and they're all still running AdSense ads a
week later.)
Certainly Google would look pretty
silly trying to force TechCrunch to take their ripper down today, now that Google itself is
distributing RealPlayer as part of the Google Pack.

RealNetworks could argue that the main difference between RealPlayer 11, and the Streambox Ripper
that they sued to
have outlawed in 2001, was that the Streambox Ripper ignored the "do not copy" flag present
in some RealAudio and RealVideo streams, and thus violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
RealNetworks says the do-not-copy flag is no longer used,
having been supplanted by more sophisticated Digital Rights Management, and RealPlayer 11 will
honor any DRM-protected streams and refuse to save them. But how much difference is there
between "ignoring" the do-not-copy
flag and "ignoring" the Terms of Service for sites like YouTube (which the program may not
be aware of, but which its makers certainly are)?

We've all heard about the
First Amendment implications
of DeCSS code, the code for decrypting
the copy-protection scheme on DVDs, being outlawed in the U.S. But the Streambox case set the
bar for "violating the DMCA" considerably lower -- the Streambox Ripper didn't actively decrypt
anything, it just ignored a flag set in the streaming media. What are the implications
if "ignoring" a flag counts as "breaking" copy protection? Suppose Behemoth Corp releases Version 1
of some media format, and I release a third-party player that plays Version 1. Then Behemoth Corp
releases the specs for
Version 2 of the format, which is similar enough that it works in Version 1 players, except Version 2 now contains
a "do-not-copy" flag, which my player doesn't know about. Is my player now illegal? (Well, in
this case Behemoth Corp would just make sure that Version 2 doesn't play in Version 1 players.
But what about general-purpose programs like Total Recorder
that can record any sound playing through your computer to an MP3 file? Does that program become illegal
if a company releases a new sound file format that they don't want to be copyable?)
So I think the acceptance of RealPlayer has nudged us closer to legal acceptance of software
that can interact with third-party sites and programs in a way that their makers don't like.
That's good.
It should not be against the law to make a program that interacts with third-party web sites
in a way that they haven't given permission for, something I literally
grew up saying.

It's brave of Google especially to be distributing RealPlayer along with the
Google Pack, at the same time that YouTube is
constantly attacked for enabling copyright violations. A content owner mounting a lawsuit against Google, would
be foolish not to say something like, "Your Honor, not only does YouTube host thousands of videos
violating the intellectual property rights of my clients, they even distribute a tool called
RealPlayer that lets people violate YouTube's own Terms of Service by saving the videos to
their hard drive!" Logically, of course, it's a weak argument -- RealPlayer is universally
available whether Google distributes it or not -- but rhetorically the argument is golden.

On the other hand, since that hasn't happened, and RealPlayer 11 is pretty well entrenched
after being out for a year, the result has probably been an expansion of our rights.
Anyone else who got sued or threatened for releasing
a ripping program would be able to point to RealNetworks. "Look at them, Your Honor,
their Web site even tells people,
'Grab videos from thousands of Web sites with just one click',
something that those 'thousands of Web sites' would probably not be thrilled with.
If it's legal for RealNetworks to tell people that, how can it be illegal for me just to have a ripping
program on my site?"

If a small-time programmer had made themselves a legal test case before RealPlayer 11 came
out, things might have gone differently;
it is an unfortunate truth that courts are probably more likely to consider something legal
when it is done by a large and legitimate-looking company like RealNetworks. Big companies do well
in court partly because their lawyers are paid to make good arguments, but they almost certainly
also get more benefit of the doubt just by virtue of being big companies. I think the time
is long overdue for using controlled experiments to measure the bias and objectivity of judges --
for example,
having different actors, one white and one black, go into different courtrooms for "mock trials"
(which the judges think are real), where both actors are standing trial for exactly identical crimes
and their lawyers say exactly identical things, and repeat this experiment enough times to see
how differently black and white defendants are treated. (We already see this, for example, in the
disparity of sentences
for powder cocaine vs. crack, but skeptics may have a point when they say that's not
a controlled experiment, because the effects of crack and cocaine are
different.)
Similarly, have mock trials
where a small-time "activist" and a large company are sued for doing exactly the same thing. I
would bet that the disparity in the outcomes of those cases would far exceed any bias due to
race or gender.

But since it was RealNetworks, with their lawyers and their
NASDAQ listing
and their former exec
in the U.S. Senate, that brought ripping to the masses,
that probably makes it OK for you and me. It's not
fair, but in this case, it's a good thing.

The BBC Radio iPlayer is still RealPlayer at its heart although it also has a Windows Media version, and it's one of the biggest installations in the world, although their agreement must be up for renewal in the next year or so.

I am even afraid that BBC may switch to Flash from real plugins like Real Player or even Wmedia.

They actually deliver their promise, even in broadband thanks to these plugins actually being designed to stream media. Real switches to UDP, switches bandwidth when in need and perform great on low bandwidth. I couldn't watch a single "flash player" BBC thing in its full.

Also if there wasn't a competitor, example like Real in hand, BBC iPlayer would be wmedia only along with wmedia drm. MS lost it when people showed how many platforms Real supports even including Symbian and Solaris.

Even if the player is not needed for playing web content, the one click save to hard drive option is very nice and seems to work with most media types. The player does not need to play a video in the browser to allow saving a copy, and it does not use the browser cache either. Saving music does have the disadvantage of getting it in the RealAudio format, but everything else is saving as flash, and replayed on The Real Player. Avoid the default install and it is not nearly as bad as it used to be...

Well, they are one of the first proprietary video/audio player companies to have a version for Linux, so while their software is not very good, you have to give them credit for at least providing their crappy software for Linux.

To add to that, has anyone actually tried their Linux version? Is it fully featured like the Linux one? Is it just as full of ads?

My university streams some courses in RealPlayer format, so I tried the Linux version. It didn't work at all on my laptop running Ubuntu. The program would install but it wouldn't start. The Windows version wouldn't work under Wine either. I fiddled for a little while then just booted Windows instead.

The "real" (ahem, sorry) story was glossed over in the summary and ignored completely in the body. That's Real's filing suit against a company for making software that will rip their streams, then coming out with a player that will rip others' streams. The hypocracy is sickening, but then again just about everything any money-worshiping corporation does is sickening.

If a big multinational corporation doesn't have to obey the law, why should you? I've said "when my congresscritters start writing respectable laws I'll respect the law" before, but I'm going to have to add "as long as corporations won't obey the law I'll be damned if I will either". Especially since those same foreign corporations have access to "my" legislators and I don't.

Someone is bount to reply that Real is an American company, but as long as a single foreigner can buy a share of its stock, it's no more an American company than Sony or BP and should neither be able to "contribute" to my legislators or have any access to them at all.

"That's Real's filing suit against a company for making software that will rip their streams, then coming out with a player that will rip others' streams. The hypocracy is sickening, but then again just about everything any money-worshiping corporation does is sickening."

Is it hypocracy in this case? I was under the impression that Real tried to stop the "Ripper", but failed. Then they considered this and evolved. If you can't beat them; steal their features and sell it.

In the early 2000s I found "Real Alternative", which is a no-nonsense, stripped-down
player and browser plugin (incl. Firefox)
for RealAudio and some video. At the time it seemed like a
miracle, an unbelievable breath
of fresh air after the adware-infested official player that
took over your machine. I've carried version 1.22 (realalt122.exe, 5.8MB,
md5 506f4d76f3a13971cc4c4110050921f7)
from one Windows machine to the next over that time, since I know it's fast,
uses little

Really? I would consider it spyware myself. They have spied on their customers too many times for me to ever put Realplayer anywhere near my network. For examples see here [cnet.com.au] which is for 10.5 and their latest 11, and here [pcworld.com] is PC World's Steve Bass advising folks to grab the BBC version of Realplayer as it is a "spyware free" version. Personally, I just avoid anything in Realplayer formats like the plague. I had to fix enough Realplayer infected machines in the late 90's and early 00's for me to ever touch that

I don't. They have one of the most invasive programs next to adware/spyware.

It's going to take more than them becoming "The Pirate's Best Friend" for me to install their crappy software. I don't know what it is about Real - they always leave me feeling dirty when I see their software in action... Note that I don't say 'when I use their software'; I don't recall willingly using it; usually I'm trying to figure out how the auto-updater became active aga

Actually I don't think most plugins have that level of control, at least for Netscape-compatible plugin interfaces (Firefox, Opera, etc). I think the browser downloads the file to the cache and points the plugin to it... on the other hand, plugins are able to check the download progress of files and play incomplete ones, but this may just be more plugin interfaces at work. At any rate, with Quicktime on Firefox the file indeed goes in the cache.

and I try and update various streaming rippers only to have it save an htm instead, tell me it cannot handle the page, or find the cache file locked to another application. Now I do cache raid IE sessions but would love to find a nearly fool proof way to get them through firefox.

The htm file that you find is normally the correct file just with the wrong extension. However I just use the Orbit Downloader [orbitdownloader.com] function called Grab++ it works quite well with Firefox. You just activate it before visiting a streaming video page and it will list the page elements that it can grab.

Use Wireshark or Microsoft NetMon 3 and watch the traffic as Flash or whatever plugin requests the video data. Copy and paste the real URL into a text file and make a link out of it. Save the text file as HTML. Open in Firefox. Right-click on the link and Save Target As...

Google can make millions of dollars over Youtube by putting Text Ads to ripped content but when time comes that people actually saves the FLV file they already downloaded, it is a problem. Do you know the solution to prevent regular end user from ripping your (read, YOURS) content? DRM it. It will at least create some hassle and legal responsibility. Not like DRM ever actually worked.

Also targeting Real Networks will really work on Slashdot considering there are thousands of people who types almost memorised things like "Spyware!" when they hear Real Networks, a company who offers entire source in GPL on https://www.helixcommunity.org/ [helixcommunity.org]

Nice, targeted article which you can only expect from a media professional having a pinpoint target. It wouldn't be wise to target Apple Inc. who offers "Save as source" in their Quicktime Plugin for ages when user pays $30 to their software making it "Pro".

Worse, if your entire work is based on Quicktime, you put Quicktime/H264 embedded to page and know that people paid $30 to Apple can easily save it as source, transcode it horribly (in general) and put to Youtube. You hate that junk presented by irrelevant text ads, contact them and they put a convenient "don't blame us, evil copyright owner forced us" toned thing to that page making your potential customers hate you.Some spends time to "Do Not Allow Save" flag of Quicktime file but never seen that "Save As

Between Firefox extensions such as DownloadHelper (and half a dozen others with similar
functionality), and the handy "dumpstream" option to MPlayer, does anyone really care
that Real has decided to support what we've had the ability to do all along?

The only effect this might have (and the reason it scares companies)? It might
reduce ad revenue from page views because Joe Sixpack can now store the "funny"
clip of some guy getting his 'nads crushed by a 2x4, rather than needing to reload
it live every time he wants to make his friends squirm. But even that depends
on Joe Sixpack remembering where he saved the file, no small feat for Joe (in my
experience).

It might reduce ad revenue from page views because Joe Sixpack can now store the "funny" clip of some guy getting his 'nads crushed by a 2x4, rather than needing to reload it live every time he wants to make his friends squirm.

Unlikely. If Joe's got a decent connection, he's much more likely to simply type "2x4 nads" into YouTube's search if he wants to show it again. Much easier than making disk space and remembering where you put it.

No, this only really becomes useful if you want to put it somewhere you don't have access to YouTube -- like an iPod. Or if you're like me -- Flash performance on my Linux sucks so much that anything fullscreen is completely unwatchable, so if it's worth watching fullscreen, I download it and play

Between Firefox extensions such as DownloadHelper (and half a dozen others with similar functionality), and the handy "dumpstream" option to MPlayer, does anyone really care that Real has decided to support what we've had the ability to do all along?

I'm surprised no one mentioned a surefire way of ripping YouTube, Dailymotion, and practically every other streaming site there is - without installing anything more than Flash player, and letting it cache the entire video.

Well, OS X version always stayed as a focused media player which also saves users of previous versions of Quicktime Player to pay $30 for "fullscreen".

Most of things Real Networks and others have done happened because of Microsoft. Why? When they figured Microsoft can easily steal their media extensions , they were forced to put a startup item. When others saw it, people ended up having "winamp agent", "quicktime task", "real taskbar" on their windows taskbar. I can't blame anyone for putting a small agent which maintains extensions on Windows because the Windows vendor doesn't play nice. I had to install "Yahoo Companion" just to make sure IE 7 stays with Yahoo search engine, to prevent it from changing "accidentally" to MSN Livesearch.

When MS decided to put Windows Media 7 preinstalled (remember how good was 6.4?), the companies were forced to code a "all in one" application which will have library, CD burning and to cover the costs, advertisement of paid content. They also figured the Microsoft one does GUID without asking user so they decided to enable it for their best server customers who offers paid content (guess who?). It was a horrible mistake. The people didn't bother to check the competition directly attacked them and become hero in end user eye.

Now they produce complete open source software for all platforms (except codecs) and still, they get hit instead of the ultimate privacy invaders like Google.

I would say "Karma" but it is beyond it. Something strange happening. For example, it is almost impossible for one to be on slashdot and never heard the Helix project (not you) and whine around saying Spyware spyware.

Now they produce complete open source software for all platforms (except codecs) and still, they get hit instead of the ultimate privacy invaders like Google.

What? You willingly typed your search query in, you willingly signed up to use their email service, you willingly allowed them to place cookies on your computer, clicked their ads, etc. etc. etc. Google can't get any info about you unless you give it some.

That is nowhere near the same thing as media players that phone home on you, when you expect them to just play your movie.

And you don't have to have all that crap in your system tray if you don't want it to be there. You can always not install it there in the first place and/or remove it yourself.

And you don't have to have all that crap in your system tray if you don't want it to be there. You can always not install it there in the first place and/or remove it yourself.

How do you get rid of the 'safely remove devices' systray icon? That seems to never go away. What's worse are those apps that you can't do a simple rt-click & close, where instead you have to exit it from the File menu,or from the systray icon. Irritating.

Sadly, Linux apps are now catching up with annoying taskbar icons as well. A

I had to install "Yahoo Companion" just to make sure IE 7 stays with Yahoo search engine, to prevent it from changing "accidentally" to MSN Livesearch.

I hate to be a pedantic asshat... But how did you have that problem?

I've used Internet Explorer 7 since Beta 1, and it's never done that. When you open the browser for the first time, it takes you to a page to pick what search engine you want as the default. I always pick Google, and it sticks.

Hee hee. Make sure you check "use this as my default search engine", and it could help to remove MSNLive from the list of search providers after that. (And make sure it's plugged in...) Besides, you can choose whatever search engine you want from the drop-down list to the right of the search box; I have Google, thottbot, and Wikipedia.

>Most of things Real Networks and others have done happened because of Microsoft. Why? When they figured Microsoft can easily steal their media extensions

Real screwed up way more than just that. I remember a time when it took more than 60 clicks to turn off all their advertising, spyware, file extension hijacking, realplayer notification crap, junk icon installers, auto downloaders, toolbars, bug-me-when-I-open-the-program type warnings (you didn't buy me, you didn't update me, you don't love me anymore

...back in the day when RealAudio kicked ass. AM-quality stereo(I think) audio over a 28.8 modem through a tiny unobtrusive program. What happened?

Really??? My experience is the opposite, that Real is one of the few applications that's gotten less bloated over the years. When Real first came out it was horribly bloated, slow, and adware-riddled, and current Real (while I don't use it) isn't nearly as bad.

Some AC from Real Networks said "There has been a geek/nerd coup here" on Slashdot. The suits decided those "add ins" (everyone at that time did it) are all gone I heard.

They should figure it a lot earlier. They should see the feedback of their MacOS/ OS X version and compare it to Windows one. It is very common for OS X machines to have Realplayer since they always shipped a media player rather than circus they ship with Windows version.

It wasn't always that way - there was a reason they got enough market share to start seeing dollar signs. As the GP said, they made an efficient, lightweight player back when the idea of streaming audio was brand new -- if they didn't invent the idea, they certainly made it popular.) I'll admit, though, that it didn't take them long to turn to the dark side.

Someone should write a alsadump program that saves everything that should go through the sound card to a.wav file. And the same for video.That should bring discussions like this to an earlier end. (and maybe lead them directly to "trusted computing"/DRMed hardware)

The issue is, Real Player is in millions of end user machines while alsadump etc. are in hands of advanced people who can also easily save the file from their cache.

Another issue is, Flash is not designed for streaming media and it can't do even 1990's tricks like bandwidth switching back and forth. Result? People figure they can't watch the video conveniently and decide to use "Save As" instead of watching it embedded along with the "Text ads" right next to it. That kills them.

I'm just wondering why said jokes are still around. Okay, yes, when RealPlayer first came out, nearly nobody had broadband, so buffering lag on even simple videos was inevitable, and they were kinda the only consumer-level game in town for a while. Fine. But is it still THAT bad a problem nowadays? Ignoring for a second that nobody uses Real anymore, does it still not stream right on a decent connection for some reason?I guess what I'm saying is, should we really harp on them for the way things were on

So is Streambox preparing a lawsuit against Real Networks for what is now clearly a case of "restraint of trade" against a competitor? RN's motive was clearly not to stop "ripping", but to kill a competitor to their own ripping tool that wasn't yet ready for the market.I wonder how Streambox could do with a claim that RN has ripped off their product design? Perhaps they could apply for a patent on their software, then charge RN with patent violation.

while I don't hew to the subscription model for most of my media, as a musician and erstwhile student of music history, I've found Rhapsody to be an excellent tool. I can't afford to purchase (and don't have the time to steal) everything in Big Media's back catalog. Rhapsody enables that search/ listen/think cycle that makes me feel like I'm effectively schooling myself in musical history.

I spent the majority of this weekend helping my 60 year old father in law find out of print records on Youtube. Eg, Brenda Holloway "Every Little Bit Hurts" [youtube.com] I captured the sound via Audacity, and exported to mp3. He burned himself a CD of out of print 50's songs that he would have no other way of getting, and he was happier than a clam. I explained to him that this was only quasi-legal, and we searched for every song he wanted to aquire on Itunes before taking this route. Surprisingly, on a CD he burned with 24 tracks, only 2 were available for purchase, the rest were only available on the internet, or via a CD he already had.

Whether RealPlayer 11 can capture youtube audio is rather besides the point, as the "analog hole" will always be available.

I have a program that loads a video page from YouTube or any site that hosts such video, rips it to an FLV file, and converts it to iPod-compatible MP4. It's very good and the video comes out crisp (the audio is unchanged so always identical).But Apple even helps out.

You can import the video as a "movie" or their new category, "music video". The music video choice means the song will play normally in a playlist in iTunes or on the iPod, but it will also play the video while playing the song. The nice fea

Real has been on the decline for a decade. They are not making any money, their media player is a living joke and I can't remember the last time I went to a site that actually required RealPlayer, or even offered it as the default/first choice.

Adding stream ripping is nothing but a desperate attempt to promote their software. They haven't the slightest desire to make people's lives easier, they are just desperately trying to regain market share.

Real in decline? They hit the nail on target by their multiplatform, platform neutral philosophy. Near all Symbian devices have Real Player, their Mobile game business is so huge that they decided it to separate it, mobile media deals are huge too.Except Microsoft, all decided not to re-invent wheel. Everyone does things based on a real standard like MPEG4/AAC now, there is no Codec war anymore. All except that spoiled, rich Microsoft who never paid for their mistakes have decided the existing ISO standards

Their incoming from operations in 1Q 2008 was -11 million and has been declining consistently over the past 3 years.

Net income has declined consistently for the past several years.

Number 3 is kind of important. It means they are not actually making money. The tiny profit they show is due to investment income -- not anything they actually make or sell.

That is, they've taken investor's money, invested it themselves, and they are using the returns to pad the top line *just enough* to stay positive.

Number 4 is important because it means that, despite the fact that they are growing revenue, they are making less money. Less actual money on more sales. In other words, they are investing more cash into sales operations and getting less return on that additional operating expense, indicating that they are having a hard time selling anything that people want to buy.

All those things aside, it's time to face facts:

Everybody is going to offer Flash as the default choice, if they don't already. Show me a relatively popular new service that is not using Flash as the default. Please, name one. Where RealPlayer is offered, it is offered only for legacy reasons. Flash works without having to maintain a complicated dedicated client, and if your goal is to put more media in front of more faces, that is the way to do it.

Fewer and fewer sites offer non-Flash dedicated streaming feeds, and when they do, they are using Quicktime or WM, which work pretty consistently in their native operating systems.

Real is a classic example of a company that formed around a great tech product and then was ruined by their corporate governors. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they stopped developing their technology years ago when they decided to focus on obtrusive advertising. It's too bad because, and I don't think this has been pointed out elsewhere, the codec is pretty damn good. It's been a long time since it was cutting-edge, but for many years (still? I don't work in this area anymore) you could

any day. First it doesn't bring 20Meg of crap along with it thats takes you an hour to turn off, and Winamp will play Windows Media and the format for streaming video that Firefox Download Helper saves.

Simple use the "Unplug" plugin for Firefox then use "Super" to convert the.flv/.rm fiel to whatever format you wish. BOTH products are FREE!

I bought Streambox ripper and Streambox VCR before Real put the kibosh on them. They were and still are good programs for rippping real media files. Then convert the RM files to some other format with Super...

Anyone who knows a bit of HTML will find it trivial to rip most anything from web pages. The hardest to rip are movies/audio delivered using SWFs, however you can usually decompile them to get the resources or references to external resources you need.

Some sites think they can be tricky by checking referers on these externally obtained resources or other safeguards, but with even the toughest safeguards I've seen one thing has remained true... the data always has to be sent to your computer SOMEHOW so yo

...all you need to do is figure out which file is your cached video and give it the FLV extension. I do this already with my favorite videos, using Perian codec suite and Quicktime to convert from Flash Video (FLV). What's the big whoop?